Globalism Seeks to Kill the Nation-State

International government threatens the whole planet.

J.B. Shurk | May 24, 2026

People are beginning to understand that those who rule in their name have long been working to eliminate the nation-state.  

The United Nations is not neutral ground for national governments to discuss their differences; it is a governmental construct meant to replace national governments.  The World Health Organization is not an international body meant to coordinate complex responses to global health emergencies; it is an institution vested with vast power and authority to track and regulate every human on the planet.  The Bank for International Settlements, the World Bank Group, and the International Monetary Fund don’t exist to expand free trade, open markets, and assist developing nations; they exist to centralize control over all economic transactions in the world.  

The onslaught of “green new deal” laws in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand have nothing to do with preserving the environment or “saving the planet”; they are part of a broader U.N. initiative to track every person’s so-called “carbon footprint” in order to monitor, tax, and regulate all human activity.  The U.N.’s “climate reparations” policy has nothing to do with “justice” or “science”; it exists to justify the redistribution of wealth from Western nations to non-Western nations under the guise of “international law.” 

The message we have heard all our lives is loud and clear: Nations do bad things.  International organizations do good things.

The rhetorical war on “nationalism” didn’t begin because people who are proud of their nations magically became Nazis; people who are proud of their nations are called “Nazis” so that those who rule over us can demonize the nation-state.  If you go back through newspapers and scholarly essays before WWII, “nationalism” and “patriotism” are used interchangeably.  After WWII, there is an obvious linguistic break.  “Patriotism,” for the most part, survives as an acceptable civic virtue (How else can governments send men into battle if there are no patriots?).  “Nationalism,” however, becomes increasingly used through the decades as a derogatory term........

© American Thinker